Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
This is the second appeal in a juvenile dependency case involving Brianna V. (born 2008), Ev.G. (born 2017), and Ez.G. (born 2024). In September 2025, the juvenile court exerted dependency jurisdiction over all three children based on two incidents of alleged sexual abuse of Brianna by her stepfather, Manuel G., who is the biological father of Ev.G. and Ez.G. Although father denied the abuse and prosecutors declined charges, the court credited Brianna's account based on corroborative evidence, including her disclosure to a close friend and relative, the timing of that disclosure, and her failure to recant.
At an October 31, 2025 dispositional hearing, the court ordered father to attend a sexual abuse treatment program, individual counseling, and parenting classes. Over the Department's objection, the court released the minors to both parents under supervision with conditions, including that father not be left alone with Ev.G. and Ez.G., unannounced home visits, and mother making the minors available to social workers. The Department appealed and obtained stays. In January 2026, father filed a section 388 petition seeking modification and return of Ev.G. and Ez.G. to the home, alleging changed circumstances based on his completion of treatment sessions and counseling.
After a March 2, 2026 hearing, the juvenile court granted father's petition, finding changed circumstances and that return was in the children's best interests. At a March 10 progress hearing, the court imposed additional safety conditions to protect Brianna, including an inside lock on her bedroom door, counseling, school-based therapy, the maternal grandmother living in the home, and continued counseling for father. The Department timely appealed from the March 2 and March 10 orders.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion. To modify a prior order under section 388, a parent must show a change of circumstances that ameliorates the problem that brought the children into dependency and that modification is in the child's best interests; review is for abuse of discretion.
The court found no abuse of discretion in the changed-circumstances determination. Father had attended sexual abuse awareness programs, participated in counseling, and engaged in successful visits with Ev.G. and Ez.G. The court rejected the Department's arguments that father had not attended enough sessions and that his refusal to admit abuse limited the programming's effectiveness, declining to reweigh the evidence. The court noted that the law does not require a parent to admit sexual abuse before a home-of-parent order is appropriate, citing Blanca P. v. Superior Court and In re Natasha A.
The court also found no abuse of discretion in the best-interests determination, relying on positive visits and stability rather than merely the biological link. It rejected the argument that safety restrictions for Brianna undermined the best-interests finding, holding that the Department forfeited any challenge to the sufficiency of those mitigating terms by not arguing them. The court further held the appeal was not moot despite the May 6, 2026 termination of jurisdiction over Ev.G. and Ez.G. because the Department had appealed that termination order, citing In re E.T.
Key Takeaways
- A juvenile court does not abuse its discretion in granting a section 388 petition where the parent has taken steps to ameliorate the dependency problem through treatment and counseling, even without admitting the underlying abuse.
- The law does not require a parent to admit sexual abuse before a home-of-parent order; the relevant inquiry is sufficient progress in understanding the conduct's impact.
- An appellate court will not reweigh evidence to second-guess a juvenile court's finding of changed circumstances.
- A section 388 appeal is not moot due to a later termination of jurisdiction if that termination order is also on appeal.
- A party forfeits a challenge to the sufficiency of safety conditions by failing to argue that issue on appeal.
Why It Matters
This opinion reinforces the deferential abuse-of-discretion standard for section 388 petitions and clarifies that a parent's denial of sexual abuse does not preclude a finding of changed circumstances or a best-interests determination favoring return home. The focus is on the parent's progress and the children's safety, not on extracting an admission.
The opinion also provides guidance on mootness in dependency appeals and illustrates the importance of preserving issues by specifically arguing them, as the Department forfeited its challenge to the safety conditions protecting Brianna.